MTG Salvation

We need a CCL organizer for next month!

I won't have internet starting today until the weekend is over. So if anything is required by me for the final round of last month it'll have to wait until monday. But I guess it's only voting now. I'd suggest not quoting our entries in the listing, as that'll turn everything italic. Best of luck Hemlock and Subject16

do redirection effects qualify for round 2?

Quote from Cardz5000 »

do redirection effects qualify for round 2?

Yes. Like I said, "any means."

2Zemoo: I agree, "number of artifacts your team control" would have been better. That's why two minds are better than one...

I probably didn't make it clear enough on my top 8 card submission (which is my bad, couldn't figure out the wording for this for the life of me), but the blocking creatures also lose indestructible. The flavor was a Darksteel Weapon that can cut through Darksteel Plates and Darksteel Myr alike.

It was originally supposed to be a Godweapon, but "Legendary Enchantment Artifact - Equipment" would not fit on the typeline

The anti-sacrifice clause on my entry was intended to prevent you from just using a sac outlet as a failsafe. The card itself was intended to be answered by either Revoke Existence or Creeping Corrosion type effects (the latter of which outright kills you.)

Quote from Zemoo »

I think there is a typo in the flavor text? ...

Gilt-Leaf Sentinel:Seems very strong

Quote from Gerrard"s Mom »

Not content as long as there are wings in the sky?
The Sentinel is just oppressive...

A couple notes on my cards:
- Skybreaker Giant was meant to be a mirror to (or pumped version of) Skyraker Giant, and the card name, the upshift in rarity and the swapping of gender were all supposed to be hints to that. The flavor text is supposed to be a mirror too, what it meant was that he goes after flying things and he won't be happy as long as he still sees something that flies. He wants to see the sky empty of anything that flies, and he's willing to even "break the sky" to achieve that. If it were written in Italian the last part would be a negative sentence, in fact check out the Italian version of that card: "...finché la sua testa NON sarà...". In Italian, "finché" is "until" and "non" is the word that makes the verb negative. In the English version there is no "not" after "until" to make the subordinate sentence negative. On my card, I had doubts about whether in English the one after "until" needed to be an affirmative or negative sentence and I might have gone for the wrong one. This use of "until" in English has always bugged me.
- As my first two cards were a bit on the simple side, I wanted something splashy for my last one, but still without being too complex. Having a powerful effect triggering on etb, attack and dies felt like an original idea to me and exactly the kind of splashiness I was looking for. It's intentionally mythic to try to make up for its power. We have a history of very powerful and undercosted mythics in real Magic. That's what was going on in my head as I designed it. I thought about it being a 3-for-1 at least, but I figured out that if it were to be printed for real and testing (which I have not done) shows that it's too powerful even as a mythic, the mana cost would just be raised accordingly.

October's round 1 will go up in the morning. (And yes I am running all the monthly contests this month but I have successfully done so before and I welcome the challenge.)

bravelion, no worries, I certainly didn't deduct for the flavor text, sorry if it came off as brusque. I was just typing comments quickly as they came to mind.
I think the other construction that works is "He will not be content until there are no wings in the sky," or something, but that's a double negative that is vaguely frowned upon. If you use "until" it implies that there are no wings in the sky now, and he will start being happy when there are. Since you want to say there are wings now and he will start being happy when there aren't any, "as long as" is the best choice.
I thought the name and body sounded familiar but I forgot what the other one was called. I still think you can straight-up outclass it at rare though. My logic here is that you would basically never play the existing giant outside of Limited, where it was fine. Your card is also technically a drawback for your flying creatures, but you would be better equipped to exploit the drawback, so it's totally fine to bump it up (adding the ability) at that cost (4).

We've had Primeval Titan and friends and stuff like Ashen Rider, so sure having a ton of triggers to make sure your thing happens is value town and is a mythic power-level, but it just strikes me as over the top, especially for what it does. The closest Titans are Inferno Titan and Frost Titan and both at least technically had some hope of saving/using the creature.
Personally there's an aesthetic balance here where this maybe feels fine on a...7 or 8 drop? Something huge that has a huge body that seems like it could just kill everything. But the 3-for-1 5 drop is just too good. The flavor concept of your card is fine but Standard would not be fun and it isn't really showing me a new design, just something pushed.
As always, comments above are just friendly critique for the sake of discussion.

I didn't deduct points for the flavor text, (I don't really abstract my evaluations as "points" anyway, but metaphorically speaking) and I also totally missed the connection to Skyraker Giant.

RE Sentinel: My personal ideal for card creation lines up with what you said. The interesting part of the card to me is the rules text (where most of the potential is), and the costs and power/toughness, etc. is all just details that can be tweaked for balancing purposes*. This forum/contest style of evaluation is very unforgiving in that regard, we submit a card and we are judged on it. We are tested for design and balance. If we were really working for WotC no one would actually be demerited for an interesting card that was undercosted, they would just change the cost and the end product would be better for the design. You could even submit a note with the card e.g. "Might be too good at 5 maybe should be a 5BG 4/5." I don't see many people submitting notes with their cards, though I usually have a ton of my own notes, other versions, etc. Does anybody else think critiques would be more interesting if we had notes in this manner?

As is, it is a contest, we have to critique on what's submitted, not the potential of what is submitted. This card is a creative way of writing, "your opponent isn't allowed to have Non-Elf Creatures while this is around" which is the wrong kind of oppressive at 5 mana and would be problematic if printed, so I did deduct some points for that. It probably got more points from me thinking, "that is a sweet, flavorful, line of text for a splashy Mythic" fwiw.

Also RE: Poultergeist's Facade, I don't think there should be an "Instead" in that ability? Sekki, Seasons' Guide,Phantom Tiger, and Swans of Bryn Argoll have similar wording to what I have written. You would use "instead" if it were a replacement effect, like Angel's Grace. Since I prevent the damage, writing "instead" would be redundant.

*sometimes these are integral parts of the design, and they are always important to the end result, unbalanced cards are less fun. But more often than not changing these won't effect what the card does, just how strong it is.

So things like Swans of Bryn Argoll do have replacement effects, because they say "if...would" but don't need to use the word "instead", because replacing an event with something that simply inherently makes it not happen (like if Mossbridge Troll would be destroyed) would indeed be redundant with the word "instead". Replacing something with another effect that doesn't directly have to do with the original event (Phytohydra) DO need "instead".

These cards could be worded differently to, well, use the word instead, but sometimes that would change how they function. Swans could say "If a source would deal damage to Swans of Bryn Argoll, instead that source's controller draws that many cards." However, this isn't preventing damage and thus is unaffected by, say, Everlasting Torment, which is unintuitive and clearly not the intent of the card. Mossbridge Troll could say "If Mossbridge Troll would be destroyed, instead tap it, remove it from combat, and remove all damage from it," but that's bizarre when the regenerate keyword action does exist (and was in current usage back then) and again, this isn't regeneration so it'd survive a Wrath of God, counter to the card's intent.

Quote from Zemoo »

I also totally missed the connection to Skyraker Giant.

It appears you weren't the only one. I knew it was kind of an obscure reference, it came up when I searched Gatherer for monored cards with reach and the idea of making a mirror immediately hit me. If I hadn't searched Gatherer, I probably wouldn't have come up with the mirroring idea at all.

RE Sentinel...

Rules text is certainly what matters most, but mana cost is important too. Usually, I always think about it when designing custom cards and I try to make it the most realistic it can be. In the Sentinel's case, I willingly took a risk pushing it because of it being mythic. Maybe I just pushed too much.

If we were really working for WotC no one would actually be demerited for an interesting card that was undercosted, they would just change the cost and the end product would be better for the design.

This is a very true point, and something I think about too sometimes.

You could even submit a note with the card e.g. "Might be too good at 5 maybe should be a 5BG 4/5." I don't see many people submitting notes with their cards, though I usually have a ton of my own notes, other versions, etc. Does anybody else think critiques would be more interesting if we had notes in this manner?

In the MCC you're supposed to present your card as a finished product that speaks for itself, so no notes are allowed and judging revolves around all aspects of the card. In the CCL, this is something we can think about.
I too usually have notes and sometimes multiple versions, there is nothing wrong with that and in fact they're kind of needed when you design a card. I just keep them in my MSE files and don't post them.

It probably got more points from me thinking, "that is a sweet, flavorful, line of text for a splashy Mythic" fwiw.

That was essentially what I was going for, so I'm glad you saw it that way.

Also RE: Poultergeist's Facade, I don't think there should be an "Instead" in that ability? ...

The reason I put the "instead" in is that the replacement ability doesn't just prevent damage but it also does other things in addition to that. If the damage prevention were the only effect, no "instead" would be needed.

Quote from bravelion83 »

The reason I put the "instead" in is that the replacement ability doesn't just prevent damage but it also does other things in addition to that. If the damage prevention were the only effect, no "instead" would be needed.

But... that's the same as the instead-less Swans of Bryn Argoll. If there's ANY damage prevention in the replacement effect it becomes redundant. Zemoo is right.

Quote from void_nothing »

Quote from bravelion83 »

The reason I put the "instead" in is that the replacement ability doesn't just prevent damage but it also does other things in addition to that. If the damage prevention were the only effect, no "instead" would be needed.

But... that's the same as the instead-less Swans of Bryn Argoll. If there's ANY damage prevention in the replacement effect it becomes redundant. Zemoo is right.

True. Someone once said you learn something every day. This is what I learned today. Thanks for making me notice.

Does my character for round 1 have to be associated with my designs for the rest of the contest?

Also, I am still wondering after being on this forum for three years. Which bonus CCL points we are talking about?

Quote from Raptorchan »

Does my character for round 1 have to be associated with my designs for the rest of the contest?

That is the intent, so choose wisely. (Not every card that you make this month will have to directly name the character or any such thing, though - but every round will be associated with the character you pick.)

Quote from Raptorchan »

Also, I am still wondering after being on this forum for three years. Which bonus CCL points we are talking about?

If you vote in the final poll for a given month, the next month, you get 1 bonus point each towards your total score in both round 1 and round 2.

Do the 5 cards from the September finals round all have to be for the same supplemental product?
Does that product need to be explicitly stated?

Quote from Zemoo »

Do the 5 cards from the September finals round all have to be for the same supplemental product?
Does that product need to be explicitly stated?

Yes, all for the same.

No, you don't need to name it, although there's no reason not to.

Quote from Cardz5000 »

I would have loved to see the flavor text attributed to the opening dedication or foreward of one of Larion's new books, it would add just a hint of humor, as well as serve to display how furious Larion is to call out someone in an academic writing.

Wow, I absolutely love this idea, I badly wish I had it. Now I am left thinking about what the title of that book could be. If I advance, that's definitely an idea I might use in a later round. Thank you very much.

Quote from soramaro »

Regarding recent card powerlevels, this feels much more appropirate as mass artifact destruction than Shatterstorm or Creeping Corrosion.

Yes, I thought about exactly those cards to decide the Vandal's mana cost. I'm glad somebody noticed that.

Quote from soramaro »

Cardz5000: Salia, Cunning Strategist

Amusingly this mirrors your critique of my card in a way, but I think the activated ability reads pretty ‘old-fashioned’. All that extra wording is essentially only really relevant during the turn Salia enters the battlefield, making her into a 5-mana (or 8-mana) combat trick. In most cases however, just having her make a 1/1 Servo token with haste would fulfill the exact same function. Granted, that would make it impossible for the activation cost to feature hybrid mana. But at two colored mana symbols, you have to have pretty heavy access to W and R anyway to enable multiple uses, so making it 1RW wouldn’t change this all too much.

A key part of Salia's activated ability is that it can drop in attackers or blockers after the declare blockers step, which on your turn means that your servos are virtually unblockable on the turn they drop in as blockers have already been declared, and on their turn you can respond to combat tricks after having already declared blockers (both of which remain very relevant on turns after Salia's been cast.) The reason for the timing restriction on the ability is that you can't have a token enter tapped and attacking if it's not combat and before the combat damage step.


Edit: Or rather, I think that the rules (506.3b. If an effect would put a creature onto the battlefield attacking under the control of any player except an attacking player, that creature does enter the battlefield, but it's never considered to be an attacking creature.) may be able to support a creature entering tapped and attacking not during combat as you are not an "attacking player". I think the leaving the timing restriction off would not be worth the confusion in play that the card may cause with those not intimately familiar with the comprehensive rules.

My thought process in reaching the current version of Azoth and why she's in her current word soup state (after a bunch of previous attempts that were scrapped)

- Okay, so I want to keep the 'trade one card in your hand for any other card of that kind' since she's an alchemist using transmutation (more or less; I know Transmute is slightly different :P).

- Well, part of her thing is that she's super old due to immortality potion type stuff. That should probably be her ultimate, since the effect should probably stop you losing the game (Plus, it'd probably be the thing that she'd be least willing to 'part' with, so to speak).

- Hmmm...Representing that in a Black/Green way...Oh, you could exile stuff from your graveyard; she gives you the recipe for the immortality potion/philosopher's stone/what have you and you make it yourself.

- ...But it's not really a very good immortality potion if you have to exile all your graveyard stuff, since you'll eventually end up dying because you run out of stuff...Reshuffle would fix that, though!

- Okay, just one more ability...The obvious thing would be 'destroy target non-land permanent' or some variation, but that's kinda Vraska's deal...-1/-1 counters seem like the way to go, I think...But if I want to do something with them that isn't just 'mini-board wipe' (which doesn't really fit with how I envisage Azoth) or 'kill a guy' (which seems like a cop-out), it should probably be her /+\ ability.

- But...Ugh, I kinda want to represent the fact that what Azoth 'wants' to do is collect ingredients for her potions. Unless I make her a four ability 'walker (which seems rather gauche to do), that isn't really present...Oh, actually, if her +1 is her killing a guy and turning their body into ingredients, that'd work!

- If that's the case, she probably shouldn't gain the loyalty unless she actually kills her target...

- Wait, crap, she's meant to be Sultai, but her three abilities are current kinda just Dimir. I might get docked for that... I guess, with her +, since she's turning enemies into reagents, maybe she can also give her potions to her allies as +1/+1 counters?

- Alright, that looks good enough.

By the time I actually realised how much of a mess there was, it was a bit late

Anyone interested in hosting the November CCL?

Last call to host the CCL before I have to take over...